Roy, this precise issue came up on the weekly call on Wednesday, and Aleecia concluded that there was disagreement among the group on the precise question of whether DNT:1 could be on by default, and that we would discuss the issue in Seattle. You can obviously do whatever you like to the document, but I just wanted to point out that the editors seem to disagree with your statement that we have reached consensus on this point. The minutes from the last call (http://www.w3.org/2012/05/30-dnt-minutes) seem to back up my argument, but perhaps I am confused and misunderstood what was said on Wednesday --- guidance from the chairs on this point would be helpful. (Also, FWIW, there is also another raised ISSUE-143 on whether "activating a tracking preference must require explicit, informed consent from a user" . . .)
In the meantime, if you or anyone else could shed some light on why DNT:1 on by default would make the standard more challenging to implement, I would very much like to hear substantive arguments about how that would not be workable. Thus far, I have only heard assertions by fiat that we can't discuss the issue and tautological interpretations of the word "preference." If there are technical reasons by DNT:1 on by default would pose problems, what are they (I'm not saying they don't exist, I just don't know)? _____
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com]
To: public-tracking@w3.org protection wg [mailto:public-tracking@w3.org]
Sent: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 19:59:09 -0400
Subject: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults
As I understand it as editor, the current consensus decision of this WG
is that no DNT header field is sent unless it is specifically enabled
through some act of the user, whether that be by configuration,
specific installation, or free choice to use software that has enabling
DNT as its purpose. I have not heard of any change to that consensus.
That is ISSUE-4 (closed 26-Oct-2011).
Note that this is not the same issue as the default for what it means
when no header field is received, which we also agreed on as being
dependent on the user's regional/cultural/use context.
I have heard that at least some people seem to think the current
TPE spec is unclear about the no-header-by-default protocol
requirement, mostly because the same section focuses on intermediaries.
I intend to fix that as an editorial concern. Please feel free
to send suggested text to the mailing list.
If anyone wants to revisit the decision on ISSUE-4, then they should
do so through the normal process described by the chairs, including
the provision of new information so that the discussion can be reopened.
Please understand that all of our discussion since Santa Clara has
been with the assumption of the no-header-by-default requirement.
If that changes, then all of our decisions since then will have to be
revisited.
Cheers,
Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
Principal Scientist, Adobe Systems <http://adobe.com/enterprise>